why can't people understand

Quote from EdT
I'm not sure I understand the logic there. The publishers benefit, that's clear. The editor got paid, he benefited. The writers still have a magazinbe to write for (and get paid for writing for) so they benefit. People buy the magazine to see those images, so circulation goes up, the adverts are seen by more people, so the advertisers benefit. The printer gets paid for printing the magazine, they benefit. The shop keeper sells the magazine and takes a slice of the money, they benefit. The magazine keeps going, provides more choice to the public (if that is what they like to buy), so they benefit. The distribution network gets paid for dispatching the magazine around the country. All in all, a lot of people benefit, not just the publishers. Just about the only people who don't benefit are the model and, above all, the photographer who doesn't even get a credit.

That's exactly the point I was making, the editor, the writer and the printers all get paid, the advertiser paid out for the advert, the reader is likely to have paid for the magazine, the onle people who soe some reason do no merit any reward are the photographers, those guys and girls who spend megabucks on gear which now seems to go out of date every couple of years.

Quote from Missie0290
Because people are stupid? The most common attitudes i've come across though are from models who view TFP as the only 'proper' way to build a portfolio and if you pay for a shoot to boost it you're not a 'real' model.

Being really hard here, the are plenty of photographers wanting to shoot who need models. If a model is unable to find somebody prepared to do the work on a TFP basis then possibly they should ask themselves whether they really have the potential to work as a model. Yes that is a hard attitude, but when I see the quality of girls loading images onto the portfolio sites I could cry. Also of course there are the congratulatory messages when a guy/girl is signed by an agency. Remember agencies are there to make money. a reputable agency only makes money if they get a model work. Although there are always a few errors (Cindy Crawford was rejected because of her mole), if a model applies to a few agencies and gets rejected the probability is that they will never make a living.

OK, let's back track a bit, there are photographers out there who make a living from doing paid tests, but one really does need to check who they are working for, do they really produce great images? Do they retouch them such that the model is unrecognisable (Blue Rooms etc.) Are they heavy soft focus. The only images that a models needs in their book are a head shot, a body shot (swimwear, sportswear, lingerie) plus a couple of others. Tear sheets are always good, although why I have no idea, surely one wants a model to represent the client's products with no history of supporting another.

Quote from natalieamanda
it was using "real girls" so to speak (i'm not saying models aren't real girls just couldn't think how else to word it) so not someone who would be well enough known to sell it as we would of expected to pay somone who was well enough known and couldn't afford that we are printing out of our own money and if were lucky enough to make £200 will consider that a success

Unfortunately from what I have found making money from calenders is extremely difficult. When I last looked at a charity calender my idea was glamour style work in a shop which had not changed since the 1940's, I could find no charity interested in being involved, this was despite the fact that I had 6 very good models involved (such that I was paying their travel expenses out of my own pocket), I had the shop and full publicity all sorted, but it was dead in the water and the shop has now been demolished. Getting calenders printed cheaply requires one to have about 1000 done, the cost for that being about £2.75 plus vat each. to sell 1000 units or even 500 requires considerable effort, I doubt that my local shop has sold 500 calenders in total let alone 500 of one type. My latest idea with a commercial client is to avoid getting large numbers of calenders printed, but instead to have them printed on demand similar to vanity published books. Here the problem is to keep costs down as the competition as seen on stands in shopping centres are going for about £10.00 each at most.

Finally one has to remember that attitudes have changed, in years gone by the Sun calender was essential viewing in many offices, when I was working for Friends Provident in 1979, we had calenders from 1975 onwards on the wall. That would no longer be allowed and anybody attempting to put them up would be likely to lose their job.

Quote from LaurenceJPowerThat's exactly the point I was making, the editor, the writer and the printers all get paid, the advertiser paid out for the advert, the reader is likely to have paid for the magazine, the onle people who soe some reason do no merit any reward are the photographers, those guys and girls who spend megabucks on gear which now seems to go out of date every couple of years.

Sorry, I must have missed your point.

It might have been the "THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT ARE THE PUBLISHERS!" which confused me, when you really meant "the only people who, for some some reason, do no merit any reward are the photographers".

Quote from LaurenceJPowerBeing really hard here, the are plenty of photographers wanting to shoot who need models. If a model is unable to find somebody prepared to do the work on a TFP basis then possibly they should ask themselves whether they really have the potential to work as a model. Yes that is a hard attitude, but when I see the quality of girls loading images onto the portfolio sites I could cry. Also of course there are the congratulatory messages when a guy/girl is signed by an agency. Remember agencies are there to make money. a reputable agency only makes money if they get a model work. Although there are always a few errors (Cindy Crawford was rejected because of her mole), if a model applies to a few agencies and gets rejected the probability is that they will never make a living.

Well, They won't make a living in the same league as the top agency models no - But that doesn't mean they can't work at internet level.I would be highly surprised if an agency would sign me. I'm not tall enough for fashion for a start so there's one out already, I don't have the boobs for glamour so there's another of the main genres you see for agency work down. I don't make a full time living. No idea if i could or not - I've not tried, I don't have the time. I model because a enjoy it and i need the flexibility that working for yourself offers. Modelling is not my only source of income. A large proportion of the girls on this website wouldn't likely get signed with a top agency - Doesn't mean they can't make a living finding work themselves.Some models might not even want to be with an agency. It is not the be all and end all for everyone.

As for being unable to find someone willing to do TF - What if they just don't like any of the TF offers? Why should they have to work for images they don't want just so some (Probably jealous) girl can't say 'You paid for it you're not a real model'. How someone builds their portfolio is their own choice and if the fastest way to getting what they want is to pay then i don't see how that has any bearing on their ability or prospects.

Because when people think of modelling they instantly think of high end paid catwork walk, stuff that's instantly published in magazines for loads of cash. They don't understand that a hobby is different from a job either.Ignore it, do what you love and do it often